<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Taming the feral beast?</title>
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/</link>
	<description>Our editors &#38; readers talk</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John C Abell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/#comment-197835</link>
		<dc:creator>John C Abell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/#comment-197835</guid>
		<description>What a shame that Tony Blair picked the same week as OJ Simpson (and Paris Hilton, for that matter) to lecture "the media" about its priorities. Dan Rather is now sounding almost sage-like as he decries the "dumbing down" and "tarting up" of his old network's evening news broadcast -- but no less a sore loser.

The truth of the matter is that reporters and publishers these days are more restrained and more inclined to let facts get in the way of a good story than they were even a few generations ago. The age of so-called yellow journalism was replete with slash and burn and outrightlies and pandering, with no transparency or empowered crowd to see right through it all. 

We have short memories. We are led to believe the Internet has whipped a malleable public into lowering their standards of what is news when, in my mother's day, there were dozens of cheap, cheesy rag mags "covering" Hollywood starlets. We are told by politicians who made decisions that cannot be defended outside of a long-evaporated context (which may never have even existed) that some of the reporting about them has been uncalled for. 

Complaining is seldom a character-burnishing attribute when it comes from a member of the power elite. It doesn't look earnest, just weak. When Edward R. Murrow complained This might just do nobody any good he was keeping his criticism in school. Blair would have been wise to use this salutary to look within himself rather than at the indignities, real and imagined, he has endured.

PS: David, now that you have been up close and personal with both The Queen and Tony Blair I hope a "tell-all" book is in the works :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a shame that Tony Blair picked the same week as OJ Simpson (and Paris Hilton, for that matter) to lecture &#8220;the media&#8221; about its priorities. Dan Rather is now sounding almost sage-like as he decries the &#8220;dumbing down&#8221; and &#8220;tarting up&#8221; of his old network&#8217;s evening news broadcast &#8212; but no less a sore loser.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that reporters and publishers these days are more restrained and more inclined to let facts get in the way of a good story than they were even a few generations ago. The age of so-called yellow journalism was replete with slash and burn and outrightlies and pandering, with no transparency or empowered crowd to see right through it all. </p>
<p>We have short memories. We are led to believe the Internet has whipped a malleable public into lowering their standards of what is news when, in my mother&#8217;s day, there were dozens of cheap, cheesy rag mags &#8220;covering&#8221; Hollywood starlets. We are told by politicians who made decisions that cannot be defended outside of a long-evaporated context (which may never have even existed) that some of the reporting about them has been uncalled for. </p>
<p>Complaining is seldom a character-burnishing attribute when it comes from a member of the power elite. It doesn&#8217;t look earnest, just weak. When Edward R. Murrow complained This might just do nobody any good he was keeping his criticism in school. Blair would have been wise to use this salutary to look within himself rather than at the indignities, real and imagined, he has endured.</p>
<p>PS: David, now that you have been up close and personal with both The Queen and Tony Blair I hope a &#8220;tell-all&#8221; book is in the works <img src='http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gerry</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/#comment-197589</link>
		<dc:creator>gerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/#comment-197589</guid>
		<description>Dont you have luxury of a different revenue model to mainstream media David - ie not dependent on Ad revenues? Paraphrasing ES Turner, the Adv/Media model exists not to inform, but to sell product. Doesnt most Western media largely remain financially viable to titillate sated and sedated audiences (on behalf of its Advertising paymasters).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dont you have luxury of a different revenue model to mainstream media David - ie not dependent on Ad revenues? Paraphrasing ES Turner, the Adv/Media model exists not to inform, but to sell product. Doesnt most Western media largely remain financially viable to titillate sated and sedated audiences (on behalf of its Advertising paymasters).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerald Graham</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/#comment-197028</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerald Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2007/06/13/taming-the-feral-beast/#comment-197028</guid>
		<description>Sounds good on paper, David, and believe me when I say I have the utmost respect for Reuters: when new happens, Reuters is almost always there, first on the scene. However, what does it mean when one says that the final arbiters are readers, clients and customers? Is it not equally true to say that readers are not just final arbiters but the primary drivers of the news? Take, for example, quality British newspapers such as the Guardian/Observer, Times/Sunday Times, Independent/Independent on Sunday, Daily Telegraph, The Economist, etc. Do not these papers in some way tend to pander to what their readers expect of them? I mean, wouldn't it be amazing if the Telegraph suddenly came out in support of Labour at the next election, or the Guardian the Conservatives? One might argue that this political bias only manifests itself at the editorial level, as opposed to the reporting of hard news, but surely this kind of slant creeps into the process of everday reporting as well, in terms of the choice, slant and texture of particular stories.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds good on paper, David, and believe me when I say I have the utmost respect for Reuters: when new happens, Reuters is almost always there, first on the scene. However, what does it mean when one says that the final arbiters are readers, clients and customers? Is it not equally true to say that readers are not just final arbiters but the primary drivers of the news? Take, for example, quality British newspapers such as the Guardian/Observer, Times/Sunday Times, Independent/Independent on Sunday, Daily Telegraph, The Economist, etc. Do not these papers in some way tend to pander to what their readers expect of them? I mean, wouldn&#8217;t it be amazing if the Telegraph suddenly came out in support of Labour at the next election, or the Guardian the Conservatives? One might argue that this political bias only manifests itself at the editorial level, as opposed to the reporting of hard news, but surely this kind of slant creeps into the process of everday reporting as well, in terms of the choice, slant and texture of particular stories.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
